My answer is Yes. I think Ross can do about as good a job as Cobb. Johnson and Dorsey, maybe even others are possibilities, but IMO, the difference between now and the bad old days is more about overall talent for special teams on the roster and/or better coaching.

Yes, absolutely, and I don't like them running him up the middle now, either...you want a speedy guy for that, use Harris. I like him better where he's being chased by safeties and nickel backs instead of linebackers getting shots at him.

I would say yes. Randall Cobb is going to be the Packers top receiver in years to come and an injury can cripple the WR core. Ross should be capable enough to take over the returner position, allowing Cobb to have 100% focus on offense.

No, unless someone else can give the Packers equal or better field position as consistently as he does on Kick and Punt Returns.

Personally I hope Ross (or anyone else for that matter) develops into the type of return man that will allow the Packers to take those duties away from Cobb but until he shows that he can do it I say no.

I know prevailing wisdom says don't use your top position players as returners but how many times do kick returners actually get hurt? One of the Bears biggest mistakes was to take the return duties away from Hester to try to make him a receiver. Now I am not saying in any way shape or form that Hester ever had Cobb's talents as a receiver or that Cobb has Hester's talent as a return man (although I am sure some homer will say Cobb is a better return man than Hester) I am not saying that at all. I think you put the best guys for the position on the field no matter what it is and right now Cobb is our best return man

If someone shows that they can be a consistent as Cobb in the return duties then by all means make the change and reduce the risk. On the other hand if you take away potential field position just because you are afraid the guy might get hurt I think you are playing from a position of playing not to lose. In games that are out of reach put someone else back there. If Cobb is not 100% put someone else back there. If the game doesn't matter for playoff seeding or whatever, put someone else back there but in the case where the game matters or is still on the line you put your best return man out there.

You put Cobb back there and he gets hurt and yeah, you will have some pissed off Packers fans but if you put other guys back there and the fumble or our return game sucks those fans won't be too happy either.

Yeah, I'm just not very convinced that the net gain of having Randall Cobb returning kicks is worth the net loss that would occur should he get injured on special teams. Just like we often hear about managing running backs carries to not wear them out over the course of the season, the same logic should apply to Randall Cobb, imo. Even if the logic of taking him off of special teams isn't to minimize injury opportunities (which is solid reasoning), simply limiting his touches is an important management decision for the coaching staff to consider. Cobb needs to be fresh and healthy late in the season, and special teams isn't going to help that. I think I would rather POTENTIALLY (but not definitely) lose a little explosion from my kick returner and maintain the explosion that Cobb provides on offense. Sure, keeping him as the returner doesn't necessarily mean he would lose any explosion on offense, but it's definitely not going to help. I feel as if someone such as J. Ross et al. could still provide a solid returner option so Cobb could focus on becoming a dominating offensive weapon. Cobb is going to help the Packers the most on offense anyway, so it would be tough to convince me that anything that potentially hinders his offensive contributions is worth it.

The exact same reasoning could be applied to Clay Mathews (or several other starters). I think it's safe to assume that CM3 would be a better special teams contributor than some of the young guys. However, it seems to be recognized that the added repetitions on his body isn't worth the perceived slight increase in special team production.

I do agree with the argument that if Cobb truly is SUBSTANTIALLY better than any other returner option (and I mean it isn't even remotely close), then it should be strongly considered. I would still probably choose to have him focus on offense though, simply because I think that's the way he contributes the most to the Green Bay Packers.

Yes, Johnathan Franklin is a rookie. ST is a way to get him on the field. But I still, just don't like it.

Let a marginal player make the team via ST. You hate to think of certain players as disposable, but the fact is, some players have proven themselves more than others. Even if it was college production.

Good arguments for and against. This shows how important it is to have a dangerous return man back there at all times. I hope we find another in our group of players as good as Cobb. Worst case scenario, we still have Cobb to use back there in a pinch.

How many top skill position players in NFL history were also exceptional returners?

Good arguments for and against. This shows how important it is to have a dangerous return man back there at all times. I hope we find another in our group of players as good as Cobb. Worst case scenario, we still have Cobb to use back there in a pinch.

How many top skill position players in NFL history were also exceptional returners?

I thought of Brown as well but a quick search showed that he didn't return many punts in his last 5 years. I'm not sure if this is because of his value as the Raiders #1 receiver or if they had found someone else who was as capable. Still, from 1993 through 1996 when he came into the forefront as a raiders receiver he was their main return guy as well.

Like I said, I hope someone, Ross perhaps or Franklin, or anyone, steps up and takes the return duties away from Cobb. If no one can do the job as well as he can however I still think he should be the guy back there.

No, unless someone else can give the Packers equal or better field position as consistently as he does on Kick and Punt Returns.

The answer you are looking for is "yes".

There is very little difference between the stats for the leading return men and the average returners.

Dodd said it, as much or more than injuries is the wear and tear he would face on ST. I don't want to see him sit out a play or two in order to catch his breath because he had to return the ball first.

There were 22 players that had 20 or more returns. Jacoby Jones lead the group with a 30.7 average. The lowest was 21.3 by Stefan Logan. The middle was around 25.4 which was Cobb's average. He was 11th out 22. We are probably only looking at a 5 yard difference between Cobb and who ever his replacement is. It really isn't that significant. All 22 players only accounted for 8 tds all year.

I've always said about Cobb that he is an extremely vaulauble WR. As many of you have already pointed out... But to me, even more, he is a valuable FOOTBALL player. He's the type of guy who can have so many demensions. I have always been a fan of keeping him on special teams. Part of what makes Cobb special is that he can play WR and return and he doesn't help the team out in 1 spot, but two. I have never wanted that aspect of his overall value taken away. That being said, there is no point in keeping him on if Ross can do the job. Most of my thoughts on Cobb were before Ross came along. If he can do it, then by all means.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.